The truth about 9/11

124

Comments

  • CommyCommy Posts: 4,984
    Commy wrote:
    and what will you americans do if it were to be discovered beyond a shadow of a doubt that the destruction of the twin towers and the murder of all those poeple was perpetrated by the US government??
    one more for all the lazy americans.




    One thing about media in the Unites States.......if the message it is trying to convey does not support the state line, chances are most americans will not see it. There is a bubble here that most are perfectly willing to reside in.


    most of what we read, see hear is pro gov't....it takes an effort to learn the truth.....an effort most just can't seem to be bothered to put out.


    I think its something in the food.







    whether there is a conspiracy behind 9/11 or not is moot, most americans would never see the truth anyway.



    something like 40% still get their news from the big 3 propaganda machines, that were so crucial in allowing W to invade Iraq......they're not journalists, they are puppets to manufacture consent.



    the United States is an empire with the most advanced military in the world, they excel at warfare. if the enemy is public dissent or a foreign army, they know how to win.





    still empires fall.

    but what would you do???


    our power is in our ability to shut this country down....ideally a general strike. which would put us in a position to make changes.


    ideally we would take away their ability to do something like that in the future. get a more transparent military, truly put the military in the hands of the people. we need to get away from this idea that we have power by checking a box every 4 years, and truly take some power, genuine control of the military.
  • Commy wrote:

    our power is in our ability to shut this country down....ideally a general strike. which would put us in a position to make changes.


    ideally we would take away their ability to do something like that in the future. get a more transparent military, truly put the military in the hands of the people. we need to get away from this idea that we have power by checking a box every 4 years, and truly take some power, genuine control of the military.

    Do you mean something like militias instead of a standing army?
  • catefrancescatefrances Posts: 29,003
    Commy wrote:
    but what would you do???


    our power is in our ability to shut this country down....ideally a general strike. which would put us in a position to make changes.


    ideally we would take away their ability to do something like that in the future. get a more transparent military, truly put the military in the hands of the people. we need to get away from this idea that we have power by checking a box every 4 years, and truly take some power, genuine control of the military.

    im not talking collectively. im more interested in what action you all would take individually. how would you harness that extreme indignantion that you surely must feel when you discover that your government had attacked its own citizens.. that they had become the domestic terrorists they tell you theyre protecting you from.
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • Pepe SilviaPepe Silvia Posts: 3,758
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    HeidiJam wrote:
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    occam's razor.

    apply it please.

    We were attacked because of our policies in the middle east. Not because anyone hates our freedom or /anything stupid like that. They basically laid out why they attacked us, why is it such a strange thing for people to believe that this group plotted and attacked us for the reasons they said they did? Why is it holding our head in the sand because we believe that people orchestrated an attack and pulled it off because of extreme dedication to what they were doing.

    nope, couldn't be that. It had to be the US gov't in some strange plot to wage a war that has done nothing but weaken our standing as a super power, added to a situation that devalued the dollar to the point of near collapse, damaged our foreign relations abilities, damaged numerous relationships with allies, etc etc etc.
    Well if you apply occams razor to the collapses of the buildings then that throughly supports Conrtolled Demolition... does it not????
    no it doesn't. The simplest solution is that GIANT FUCKING PLANES hit the buildings structurally weakening them to the point of failure. they then fell on top of themselves (pancaked). Why is that so hard to believe?

    again, we were attacked for the reasons given, not so a few white men could get a little more money that their "plot" successfully lowered the value of anyway.


    that might explain the first 2 buildings but not wtc7. they claim one side was damaged and that made it fall. but if a structure is damaged on a side or corner and weakens enough to fall it should topple over in that direction, not straight down without resistance.

    also, you don't find it odd bush later said he didn't think about bin laden and he wasn't important because it's bigger than just 1 guy??? wtf is that about!? of course a concept is bigger than a single guy but what about this crime he supposedly masterminded and ordered? maybe i should rob a bank and argue that crime is much bigger than just me so no harm, no foul

    it's a lot bigger than a few white men making a little more money, take a look at all the things they managed to change and agendas they put in motion with the blind support they had
    don't compete; coexist

    what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?

    "I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama

    when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
    i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
  • OutOfBreathOutOfBreath Posts: 1,804
    that might explain the first 2 buildings but not wtc7. they claim one side was damaged and that made it fall. but if a structure is damaged on a side or corner and weakens enough to fall it should topple over in that direction, not straight down without resistance.
    Mustn't forget the massive earthquake-tremors suffered by a building standing right next to a couple million tons of concrete slamming into the ground. The controlled demolition thesis demands that for days and weeks beforehand people were walking all over that building placing explosives everywhere. (That's how long it takes to prepare for stuff like that) You can't pull one of those "on the fly" shortly after the building is emptied of people. So, the commision couldn't pin down just why exacty it fell down. Isn't that strange, considering this wasn't exactly a controlled experiment, but trying to deduce from debris what might have happened.

    Controlled demolition is still extremely unlikely, given that noone in that building noticed something was going on for the days it had to have taken to place all those charges. (Not to mention WHY would they need to demolish that building if they successfully brought down the two big'uns, and they did it to scare people into support. It didsn't add anything, so motive is also absent.) And any other alternative theory has yet to materialize to my attention. So, given the choice between "We're not sure" and the highly unlikely alternative (both physically and motive-wise), I'll stick with the "don't know" one.
    also, you don't find it odd bush later said he didn't think about bin laden and he wasn't important because it's bigger than just 1 guy??? wtf is that about!? of course a concept is bigger than a single guy but what about this crime he supposedly masterminded and ordered? maybe i should rob a bank and argue that crime is much bigger than just me so no harm, no foul
    Well, he IS correct in that statement. One man didn't do this. It took an organization of some scope to pull it off. Of which he happened to be the head, and he surely played a part, but one man didn't do it, and getting that one man changes nothing. You gotta get the organization behind. (The ones that actually DID it, also died in the process, remember?) So Bush actually gets that one right. (Although later they focused alot an getting Bin Laden for the pr-boost they needed)
    it's a lot bigger than a few white men making a little more money, take a look at all the things they managed to change and agendas they put in motion with the blind support they had
    Actually, what is striking is that so little has changed, really. And this comes from someone who also thought things were looking bad back in the day. For a stunt like this, a coup d'etat or something should or would have been the goal. For sure, they went into Afghanistan after this, but for what possible reason should someone want that beforehand? They abused the sentiments afterwards to sell the war on Iraq as well, which (maybe) Bush and (definitely) pals were just waiting for the excuse to go on. Many power players were pissed that the US didn't use the opportunity in the gulf war to oust Saddam. But kill thousands of Americans to justify it? Not seeing it. Taking advantage, yes. Planning and doing, no. And if they are so clever and have so much control of the state apparatus as to pull off and keep quiet 9-11, how did they not manage to place a couple of WMD in a hidden bunker somewhere in the country they were controlling militarily?

    9-11 is an outrageous price for very few benefits for the perceived benefactors. You can get many power-people into doing dodgy shit overseas, or in countries they dont like, but I actually believe that the vast majority would have serious and severe qualms about killing thousands of fellow americans. Since their motivation usually is a sort of patriotism that also is good for their business (elsewhere).

    Peace
    Dan
    "YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death

    "Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
  • Yes controlled demolition would take weeks to set up. That's why 30 year employees of the building said security was taken down for weeks before the event. Construction sounds were heard on supposedly abandoned floors. Undocumented workers were seen in the building. So there were signs. And then there's the video footage of the guys actually detonating one of the building by implosion.
    Evolution Music Studios presents:
    DO THE EVOLUTION - a 20th Anniversary Tribute Celebration
    of PEARL JAM - WORLD CAFE LIVE PHILLY JUNE 19th 7pm
  • OutOfBreathOutOfBreath Posts: 1,804
    Are you referring to the good old "pull it" video? Where we dont know who is saying it, or in what context?

    Peace
    Dan
    "YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death

    "Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
  • Pepe SilviaPepe Silvia Posts: 3,758
    that might explain the first 2 buildings but not wtc7. they claim one side was damaged and that made it fall. but if a structure is damaged on a side or corner and weakens enough to fall it should topple over in that direction, not straight down without resistance.
    Mustn't forget the massive earthquake-tremors suffered by a building standing right next to a couple million tons of concrete slamming into the ground. The controlled demolition thesis demands that for days and weeks beforehand people were walking all over that building placing explosives everywhere. (That's how long it takes to prepare for stuff like that) You can't pull one of those "on the fly" shortly after the building is emptied of people. So, the commision couldn't pin down just why exacty it fell down. Isn't that strange, considering this wasn't exactly a controlled experiment, but trying to deduce from debris what might have happened.

    Controlled demolition is still extremely unlikely, given that noone in that building noticed something was going on for the days it had to have taken to place all those charges. (Not to mention WHY would they need to demolish that building if they successfully brought down the two big'uns, and they did it to scare people into support. It didsn't add anything, so motive is also absent.) And any other alternative theory has yet to materialize to my attention. So, given the choice between "We're not sure" and the highly unlikely alternative (both physically and motive-wise), I'll stick with the "don't know" one.

    there were reports that at least at the 2 big towers certain floors were shut down while work was done shortly before. lots of files were destroyed in building 7 and lots of cases were dropped because of it, 1/2 of the floors that had fires that burned 'uncontrollably' happened to be the floors where the securities and exchange commission had all their offices. but i can't say for sure, just like i can't say for sure why bush and cheney refused to testify unless they were together and refused to testify under oath. and i don't know why the team fema picked to initially investigate building 7 were not allowed at the site but given a few pieces of scrap at a landfill and were denied blueprints to building 7 since they lacked any kind of subpoena power.
    also, you don't find it odd bush later said he didn't think about bin laden and he wasn't important because it's bigger than just 1 guy??? wtf is that about!? of course a concept is bigger than a single guy but what about this crime he supposedly masterminded and ordered? maybe i should rob a bank and argue that crime is much bigger than just me so no harm, no foul
    Well, he IS correct in that statement. One man didn't do this. It took an organization of some scope to pull it off. Of which he happened to be the head, and he surely played a part, but one man didn't do it, and getting that one man changes nothing. You gotta get the organization behind. (The ones that actually DID it, also died in the process, remember?) So Bush actually gets that one right. (Although later they focused alot an getting Bin Laden for the pr-boost they needed)

    that is like the police saying they don't have any interest in finding manson because he only orchestrated the killings. he is the leader of the group that they say committed this attack, terrorism being bigger than 1 guy aside shouldn't he still be hunted down for it? maybe in ww2 they shouldn't have cared about hitler, the nazis were bigger than a single guy, afterall....

    it's a lot bigger than a few white men making a little more money, take a look at all the things they managed to change and agendas they put in motion with the blind support they had
    Actually, what is striking is that so little has changed, really. And this comes from someone who also thought things were looking bad back in the day. For a stunt like this, a coup d'etat or something should or would have been the goal. For sure, they went into Afghanistan after this, but for what possible reason should someone want that beforehand? They abused the sentiments afterwards to sell the war on Iraq as well, which (maybe) Bush and (definitely) pals were just waiting for the excuse to go on. Many power players were pissed that the US didn't use the opportunity in the gulf war to oust Saddam. But kill thousands of Americans to justify it? Not seeing it. Taking advantage, yes. Planning and doing, no. And if they are so clever and have so much control of the state apparatus as to pull off and keep quiet 9-11, how did they not manage to place a couple of WMD in a hidden bunker somewhere in the country they were controlling militarily?

    9-11 is an outrageous price for very few benefits for the perceived benefactors. You can get many power-people into doing dodgy shit overseas, or in countries they dont like, but I actually believe that the vast majority would have serious and severe qualms about killing thousands of fellow americans. Since their motivation usually is a sort of patriotism that also is good for their business (elsewhere).

    Peace
    Dan

    they also took a record surplus and pissed it away, mostly on war and weapons to where we are now which is a record deficit, i'd say that's a pretty big change. they got fisa rewritten so the warrantless wiretapping is perfectly legit now, i'd say that's a pretty big change. there's evasive measure like the patriot act passed and we have 2 administrations in a row that support the indefinite detention of suspected terrorists without a trial, i'd say that's a pretty big change. we have prisons where torture is now legal and the geneva conventions 'quaint' holding 'terrorists' who were never even given a trial, some not even a charge, how is that not a big change? you say nothing much has changed and yet thousands of people have died over these 'small changes'. perpetual war seems like a pretty big change to me

    i've already answered why i think they didn't plant any wmds which should be obvious to anyone - we are still there and funding it is always approved without a problem, hell, they even gave bonuses to companies AFTER the military proved they committed billing fraud, fed the troops spoiled meat, dirty water...without any problems so obviously there not being any wmds mattered fuckall
    don't compete; coexist

    what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?

    "I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama

    when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
    i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
  • WaveCameCrashinWaveCameCrashin Posts: 2,929
    Natgeo did a doc that debunks all of the truthers claims on what happened on 911 From the twin towers being brought down by explosives to the pentegon being hit by a missile.
    But of course Alex Jones and the truthers said that "natgeo and the demolition experts were in on it as far as the buildings being blown up.
  • mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    prfctlefts wrote:
    Natgeo did a doc that debunks all of the truthers claims on what happened on 911 From the twin towers being brought down by explosives to the pentegon being hit by a missile.
    But of course Alex Jones and the truthers said that "natgeo and the demolition experts were in on it as far as the buildings being blown up.


    exactly...no matter what they hear, it is always that someone else is in on it. I don't get it. Theoretical physics are just that...

    Truthers is the biggest misnomer in our country. they aren't interested in the truth, they are only interested in a controversy, and people like alex jones are laughing all the way to the bank.


    edit:

    but of course I was in on it so I am only trying to throw them off the scent
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 19,138
    Jason P wrote:
    Not finding WMD's destroyed Bush's reputation, not only in the U.S. but also the world. He took the country to war based on WMD's. It allowed coalition nations a reason to pull support out Iraq. Half his cabinet went down in flames over his 2nd term. It provided a perfect scenario for the Democrats to take power back. Any yet people who think the Republican's orchestrated 9/11 can't offer a simple explanation how WMD's couldn't be planted in the middle of a desert that was 100% under U.S. military control.

    Don't blame Bush for keeping our troops in Iraq. I recall hundreds of Democratic candidates a few years back making campaign promises to bring our troops home if elected. I think one of them even kinda looked like our current president.


    If they’d found evidence of a nuclear program, the ENTIRE WORLD would have wanted to review the evidence, and it would have been out of their control. The 9/11 investigation wasn’t an international one, open to any meaningful peer review. A WMD find would have been, because it would have contradicted the UN weapons inspector reports.

    Soooooo…..what’s the next best thing to planted weapons? Convince the public that they were found regardless of whether they were or not.
    Depending on which poll you read, as many as half of all Americans believed that WMD WERE found in Iraq. Several such claims were made by the government ….(chemical agents…but as long as the catchphrase acronym is attached, does it matter?). A huge number of Americans DID believe they were found, and many more believe there were plans in place to produce them – combining the two showed a large majority of Americans thought WMD were actively being sought by Iraq. So why bother with a plant that could implicate them, when their objectives were met, and the public majority was, if not already convinced of WMD, at least confused or ignorant?

    As far as the coalition nations go, it was all symbolic. The US did not give a flying fuck what their allies thought about them invading Iraq, and would have gone regardless of opposition – it WAS opposed by many traditional allies
    I don't think it necessarily had to be a nuclear weapon. WMD's could be chemical or biodegradable. And the U.S. could easily pull off faking a WMD discovery in 170,000 square miles of controlled airspace.

    And as you mentioned, many of the U.S.'s traditional allies were opposed to the war. Finding WMD's would have led to increases in funding and extra support and troops from our traditional allies. It would have justified the war to the American public and may have helped keep the Republicans in office . . . although the Dems didn't push it super hard at the end because they knew we couldn't just pull out immediately.
  • OutOfBreathOutOfBreath Posts: 1,804
    there were reports that at least at the 2 big towers certain floors were shut down while work was done shortly before. lots of files were destroyed in building 7 and lots of cases were dropped because of it, 1/2 of the floors that had fires that burned 'uncontrollably' happened to be the floors where the securities and exchange commission had all their offices. but i can't say for sure, just like i can't say for sure why bush and cheney refused to testify unless they were together and refused to testify under oath. and i don't know why the team fema picked to initially investigate building 7 were not allowed at the site but given a few pieces of scrap at a landfill and were denied blueprints to building 7 since they lacked any kind of subpoena power.
    And not one of the "construction workers" have come forward for the scoop of the century? This seems like a collection of hearsay and rumour.
    that is like the police saying they don't have any interest in finding manson because he only orchestrated the killings. he is the leader of the group that they say committed this attack, terrorism being bigger than 1 guy aside shouldn't he still be hunted down for it? maybe in ww2 they shouldn't have cared about hitler, the nazis were bigger than a single guy, afterall....
    No, that's not the same. Manson and his little family was a little gang of deranged people that murdered a couple of folks. Whole different scale, and not a political terrorist assault. They were not attacking the american general population. And you seem to be misreading the quote as Bush saying "ah well". He's not. He's just stating that the priority is getting at the organization that was required to pull this off (Al Qaeda). He's not saying that they will not be getting Bin Laden. He is just saying that he is not the important one here, the organization is.

    they also took a record surplus and pissed it away, mostly on war and weapons to where we are now which is a record deficit, i'd say that's a pretty big change. they got fisa rewritten so the warrantless wiretapping is perfectly legit now, i'd say that's a pretty big change. there's evasive measure like the patriot act passed and we have 2 administrations in a row that support the indefinite detention of suspected terrorists without a trial, i'd say that's a pretty big change. we have prisons where torture is now legal and the geneva conventions 'quaint' holding 'terrorists' who were never even given a trial, some not even a charge, how is that not a big change? you say nothing much has changed and yet thousands of people have died over these 'small changes'. perpetual war seems like a pretty big change to me

    i've already answered why i think they didn't plant any wmds which should be obvious to anyone - we are still there and funding it is always approved without a problem, hell, they even gave bonuses to companies AFTER the military proved they committed billing fraud, fed the troops spoiled meat, dirty water...without any problems so obviously there not being any wmds mattered fuckall
    You seem to assume that US foreign policy never killed anyone before 9-11... Or that the US isn't always involved in some conflict somewhere. Thats not change, that's continuity. A bit more blatant and intense in post 9-11 perhaps, but nothing different.
    Yes, some new laws are on the books, and the police is given wider authority in order to prevent future attacks. Yes, the surplus was pissed away, which is fairly ordinary in a democracy and in this case based on path of least resistance politics refusing to weigh the need for more military with wishing tax cuts. (Ironic for a "tough" president or what?)

    As for the WMD, they would by providing that (at very low cost), given several of their allies the fig-leaf they needed to keep supporting the Iraq war. Having a fig-leaf makes a world of difference in the world of diplomacy. Then you can make it into my word against the other one's. As it stands, everybody knows that America blatantly lied, and you have been suffering for it diplomatically. Not to mention having your moral standing utterly demolished. All of which could have been avoided by the placement of some containers of nerve-gas and maybe a shoddy near-nuke. Hell, could have used the same "construction workers" to do it, so the conspiracy didn't have to get larger. ;)

    Here's a list of who had to be in on it or shut up for the conspiracy to be quiet according to various CTers. And under what turned out to be the least popular administration in history, noone saw fit to expose this. Implausible.

    [edit: added link :p ]
    http://www.debunking911.com/massivect.htm

    Peace
    Dan
    "YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death

    "Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
  • FlaggFlagg Posts: 5,856
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    prfctlefts wrote:
    Natgeo did a doc that debunks all of the truthers claims on what happened on 911 From the twin towers being brought down by explosives to the pentegon being hit by a missile.
    But of course Alex Jones and the truthers said that "natgeo and the demolition experts were in on it as far as the buildings being blown up.


    exactly...no matter what they hear, it is always that someone else is in on it. I don't get it. Theoretical physics are just that...

    Truthers is the biggest misnomer in our country. they aren't interested in the truth, they are only interested in a controversy, and people like alex jones are laughing all the way to the bank.


    edit:

    but of course I was in on it so I am only trying to throw them off the scent

    I knew it!!


    LOL, yeah this is why it is always difficult to disprove a conspiracy theory. The theorist can always fall back on the "you are in on it" crutch.
    DAL-7/5/98,10/17/00,6/9/03,11/15/13
    BOS-9/28/04,9/29/04,6/28/08,6/30/08, 9/5/16, 9/7/16, 9/2/18
    MTL-9/15/05, OTT-9/16/05
    PHL-5/27/06,5/28/06,10/30/09,10/31/09
    CHI-8/2/07,8/5/07,8/23/09,8/24/09
    HTFD-6/27/08
    ATX-10/4/09, 10/12/14
    KC-5/3/2010,STL-5/4/2010
    Bridge School-10/23/2010,10/24/2010
    PJ20-9/3/2011,9/4/2011
    OKC-11/16/13
    SEA-12/6/13
    TUL-10/8/14
  • OutOfBreathOutOfBreath Posts: 1,804
    Flagg wrote:

    I knew it!!


    LOL, yeah this is why it is always difficult to disprove a conspiracy theory. The theorist can always fall back on the "you are in on it" crutch.
    Don't forget the "blinded sheep" crutch! ;)

    Peace
    Dan
    "YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death

    "Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
  • Pepe SilviaPepe Silvia Posts: 3,758
    prfctlefts wrote:
    Natgeo did a doc that debunks all of the truthers claims on what happened on 911 From the twin towers being brought down by explosives to the pentegon being hit by a missile.
    But of course Alex Jones and the truthers said that "natgeo and the demolition experts were in on it as far as the buildings being blown up.


    that same doc also backs up the lone gunman theory in the jfk killing and says theories otherwise are the same as 9/11 conspiracies.
    don't compete; coexist

    what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?

    "I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama

    when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
    i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
  • mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    prfctlefts wrote:
    Natgeo did a doc that debunks all of the truthers claims on what happened on 911 From the twin towers being brought down by explosives to the pentegon being hit by a missile.
    But of course Alex Jones and the truthers said that "natgeo and the demolition experts were in on it as far as the buildings being blown up.


    that same doc also backs up the lone gunman theory in the jfk killing and says theories otherwise are the same as 9/11 conspiracies.


    because they were able to recreate exactly what happened. Just because there was one gunman doesn't mean he was acting alone. Just means he was the shooter.
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • OutOfBreathOutOfBreath Posts: 1,804
    prfctlefts wrote:
    Natgeo did a doc that debunks all of the truthers claims on what happened on 911 From the twin towers being brought down by explosives to the pentegon being hit by a missile.
    But of course Alex Jones and the truthers said that "natgeo and the demolition experts were in on it as far as the buildings being blown up.


    that same doc also backs up the lone gunman theory in the jfk killing and says theories otherwise are the same as 9/11 conspiracies.
    Well, assasinating someone is an event of ALOT less magnitude and complexity. You basically need a guy or two wanting it, and one guy doing it.

    This conspiracy would require thousands at the very least controlling all ends of it.

    And there's nothing like the magic bullet at work here. It's all complicated physics and structural engineering that no "guy on the internet" understands. I dont have a clue, but rely on the full body of experts' joint statement as to the likely order of events. That's science and I trust it to the degree that if there was a serious paper outlining why it had to have happened another way, it would have been printed and circulated in serious journals. (It might not be true for that, but it would at least be a real paper backing it).

    Most of the CT evidence relies on random quotes (out of context) and looking yourself at pictures and unverified movie clips to form an opinion. You can't say from a picture, "well that building looks sturdy enough" and use that as evidence. Maybe the whole back is missing, you just dont see it. and critical damage dont have to be readily visible from every angle.. (edit) or indeed any angle for that matter.

    Peace
    Dan
    "YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death

    "Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
  • Pepe SilviaPepe Silvia Posts: 3,758
    edited July 2010
    there were reports that at least at the 2 big towers certain floors were shut down while work was done shortly before. lots of files were destroyed in building 7 and lots of cases were dropped because of it, 1/2 of the floors that had fires that burned 'uncontrollably' happened to be the floors where the securities and exchange commission had all their offices. but i can't say for sure, just like i can't say for sure why bush and cheney refused to testify unless they were together and refused to testify under oath. and i don't know why the team fema picked to initially investigate building 7 were not allowed at the site but given a few pieces of scrap at a landfill and were denied blueprints to building 7 since they lacked any kind of subpoena power.
    And not one of the "construction workers" have come forward for the scoop of the century? This seems like a collection of hearsay and rumour.

    a collection of hearsay and rumor which, coincidentally, sounds a lot like the 9/11 investigation. kinda like if you ask someone what did the hijackers use to gain control of the aircraft they all will say boxcutters but the fbi says there is no basis for this claim, the lone guy who said his wife called him from the plane was disproven by both the fbi and the airline she was on.
    that is like the police saying they don't have any interest in finding manson because he only orchestrated the killings. he is the leader of the group that they say committed this attack, terrorism being bigger than 1 guy aside shouldn't he still be hunted down for it? maybe in ww2 they shouldn't have cared about hitler, the nazis were bigger than a single guy, afterall....
    No, that's not the same. Manson and his little family was a little gang of deranged people that murdered a couple of folks. Whole different scale, and not a political terrorist assault. They were not attacking the american general population. And you seem to be misreading the quote as Bush saying "ah well". He's not. He's just stating that the priority is getting at the organization that was required to pull this off (Al Qaeda). He's not saying that they will not be getting Bin Laden. He is just saying that he is not the important one here, the organization is.

    oh, i get it, orchestrate the killing of a few people and you get a manhunt, orchestrate the killing of a little <3,000 people and meh no big deal....i am not misreading the quote, he was asked about the hunt for bin laden and he said he truly wasn't concerned with him because he wasn't running a country. yeah, but he still supposedly masterminded the death of close to 3,000 people.

    they also took a record surplus and pissed it away, mostly on war and weapons to where we are now which is a record deficit, i'd say that's a pretty big change. they got fisa rewritten so the warrantless wiretapping is perfectly legit now, i'd say that's a pretty big change. there's evasive measure like the patriot act passed and we have 2 administrations in a row that support the indefinite detention of suspected terrorists without a trial, i'd say that's a pretty big change. we have prisons where torture is now legal and the geneva conventions 'quaint' holding 'terrorists' who were never even given a trial, some not even a charge, how is that not a big change? you say nothing much has changed and yet thousands of people have died over these 'small changes'. perpetual war seems like a pretty big change to me

    i've already answered why i think they didn't plant any wmds which should be obvious to anyone - we are still there and funding it is always approved without a problem, hell, they even gave bonuses to companies AFTER the military proved they committed billing fraud, fed the troops spoiled meat, dirty water...without any problems so obviously there not being any wmds mattered fuckall
    You seem to assume that US foreign policy never killed anyone before 9-11... Or that the US isn't always involved in some conflict somewhere. Thats not change, that's continuity. A bit more blatant and intense in post 9-11 perhaps, but nothing different.
    Yes, some new laws are on the books, and the police is given wider authority in order to prevent future attacks. Yes, the surplus was pissed away, which is fairly ordinary in a democracy and in this case based on path of least resistance politics refusing to weigh the need for more military with wishing tax cuts. (Ironic for a "tough" president or what?)

    As for the WMD, they would by providing that (at very low cost), given several of their allies the fig-leaf they needed to keep supporting the Iraq war. Having a fig-leaf makes a world of difference in the world of diplomacy. Then you can make it into my word against the other one's. As it stands, everybody knows that America blatantly lied, and you have been suffering for it diplomatically. Not to mention having your moral standing utterly demolished. All of which could have been avoided by the placement of some containers of nerve-gas and maybe a shoddy near-nuke. Hell, could have used the same "construction workers" to do it, so the conspiracy didn't have to get larger. ;)

    Here's a list of who had to be in on it or shut up for the conspiracy to be quiet according to various CTers. And under what turned out to be the least popular administration in history, noone saw fit to expose this. Implausible.

    [edit: added link :p ]
    http://www.debunking911.com/massivect.htm

    Peace
    Dan


    how do i assume people didn't die before 9/11?? they need a reason to increase the defense budget, especially to the levels bush did. reagan exaggerated the threat of the soviets to get it, daddy bush had saddam....but then clinton cut the budget

    diplomacy is meaningless to an administration that believes in preemptive, unilateral attacks.

    also, your list is very questionable, i fail to see why many of the people on the list, like the airlines, would HAVE to be in on it??

    for instance, you list says

    -The NYC Fire fighters who know more about building collapses than most, if not all, of them. It's their LIFE to know. Literally! Yet they don't call for an investigation into the MASS MURDER of over 300 of their brothers... Why?

    why would the fire fighters have to be involved in it? and as to why don't they call for an investigation....well, many do, actually....like firefighters for 9/11 truth
    http://firefightersfor911truth.org/

    or this article:
    http://www.slate.com/id/2215703
    The most common conspiracy theory held by firefighters is that the Twin Towers—as well as a third building, 7 World Trade Center—collapsed not because planes crashed into them but due to a "controlled demolition." On Sept. 11, an NBC reporter quoted New York Fire Department Chief of Safety Albert Turi as saying he believed there were explosives planted in one of the towers. After the attacks, the New York Fire Department interviewed firefighters to create an oral history of 9/11. These tapes—which were not released until 2005—contain numerous references to explosions heard just before the buildings fell. Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, a Web site started in 2008, says the government destroyed evidence that 7 World Trade Center was blown up and hosts a petition asking Congress to look into the possibility that "exotic accelerants" destroyed the buildings.

    -The more than 1,600 widows and widowers of 9/11 who would rather have investigations of the decisions which led to the terrorist getting away with this. They don't want to waste time investigating the mass murder of their loved ones. Even the Jersey Girls. Why? They say it's the money... [note: Whenever killing someone, pay off the relative. They won’t say anything.]


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Truth ... cteristics
    Several organizations of family members of people who have died in the attacks are calling for an independent investigation into the attacks.[53] In 2009, a group of people, including 9/11 Truth movement activist Lorie Van Auken and others who have lost friends or relatives in the attack, appealed to the City of New York to investigate the disaster. The organization New York City Coalition for Accountability Now is collecting signatures to require the New York City Council to place the creation of an investigating commission on the November 2009 election ballot.[54]

    hmmm several groups of family members? like this one?
    http://www.nyccan.org/about.php
    NYC CAN is non-partisan, non-profit organization representing over one-hundred 9/11 family members, dozens of first responders and survivors, and thousands of proud citizens committed to bringing about a new and independent investigation into the events of September 11, 2001.


    -All the people in the Pentagon who have not called for an investigation. Many who are liberal and centrist. They did or said nothing while people supposedly trucked in airplane parts to cover the crime. Why? Again, no answer...


    really, ALL the people in the pentagon would have to be in on the conspiracy in order for it to be true, dan, is that REALLy what you are telling me??

    -EVERY STRUCTURAL ENGINEER IN THE WORLD who doesn't write a paper for a mainstream peer reviewed journal saying the towers were brought down and could not have fallen due to fire. If laymen can prove things just by looking at videos and reading interviews out of context, then all those structural engineers MUST be working for Bush right? Even the ones in other countries. Why? The answer they give is that the engineers don't know about Jones’ work. So in all this time no one has e-mailed Jones' work to any structural engineer?

    ummm, so what about all the ones who DO think there is something to it??

    -The liberals who don't believe the towers were brought down. (Like me) They're helping a neo-con cover-up the largest mass murder in this nation’s history. Why? No clue...

    ok, now he's just being absurd. everyone who thinks differently must be in on it? is he high? does that mean people who think oswald killed kennedy were in on it, too?
    Post edited by Pepe Silvia on
    don't compete; coexist

    what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?

    "I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama

    when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
    i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
  • Pepe SilviaPepe Silvia Posts: 3,758
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    prfctlefts wrote:
    Natgeo did a doc that debunks all of the truthers claims on what happened on 911 From the twin towers being brought down by explosives to the pentegon being hit by a missile.
    But of course Alex Jones and the truthers said that "natgeo and the demolition experts were in on it as far as the buildings being blown up.


    that same doc also backs up the lone gunman theory in the jfk killing and says theories otherwise are the same as 9/11 conspiracies.


    because they were able to recreate exactly what happened. Just because there was one gunman doesn't mean he was acting alone. Just means he was the shooter.


    shoot a can or something and tell me it moves forward or backwards....the shot supposedly came from behind kennedy and yet his head moved backwards and to the left, which would be the direction of the grassy knoll.
    don't compete; coexist

    what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?

    "I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama

    when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
    i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
  • Pepe SilviaPepe Silvia Posts: 3,758
    edited July 2010
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    prfctlefts wrote:
    Natgeo did a doc that debunks all of the truthers claims on what happened on 911 From the twin towers being brought down by explosives to the pentegon being hit by a missile.
    But of course Alex Jones and the truthers said that "natgeo and the demolition experts were in on it as far as the buildings being blown up.


    that same doc also backs up the lone gunman theory in the jfk killing and says theories otherwise are the same as 9/11 conspiracies.


    because they were able to recreate exactly what happened. Just because there was one gunman doesn't mean he was acting alone. Just means he was the shooter.


    http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/us/j ... 31116.html
    Nov. 16— Forty years later, suspicions of a conspiracy endure: Seven in 10 Americans think the assassination of John F. Kennedy was the result of a plot, not the act of a lone killer — and a bare majority thinks that plot included a second shooter on Dealey Plaza.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102511,00.html
    The FOX News poll, conducted by Opinion Dynamics Corporation (search), also shows that most Americans (74 percent) think there was a cover-up of the facts about the assassination of JFK. Few people (14 percent) think “we know all the facts” and 12 percent are unsure.

    http://www.pollingreport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy
    Gallup Poll. Nov. 10-12, 2003. Nationwide.

    "Turning now to the assassination of John F. Kennedy in 1963: Do you think that one man was responsible for the assassination of President Kennedy, or do you think that others were involved in a conspiracy?"

    One Man Others Involved No Opinion
    % % %
    11/03 19 75 6
    3/01 13 81 6
    11/93 15 75 10
    Post edited by Pepe Silvia on
    don't compete; coexist

    what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?

    "I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama

    when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
    i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
  • OutOfBreathOutOfBreath Posts: 1,804
    OK, he overtstates it. But can you in any way reduce that list to such an extent that thousands didn't have to be involved in it? The point isn't the accuracy of every claim, it's showing how complex it is and how many different parties would have to be shut up or involved in some way.

    As for the existence of fire-fighters and relatives that are "truthers" does not take away from the fact that the large majority of these groups aren't. (not that relatives know better than me what happened) If it was widely believed among the firefighters on the scene that this was controlled demolition, why didn't their organizations say or do anything about it? Unions tend to make a fuss if houndreds of their members die "on the job", especially if there was something fishy about it. Why didn't concerned firemen appear in all the media outlets, who would pounce on anything like this? (go on, say conspiracy and I'll start mentally counting how many people in the media that would entail to be in on it)

    Peace
    Dan
    "YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death

    "Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
  • mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    edited July 2010


    shoot a can or something and tell me it moves forward or backwards....the shot supposedly came from behind kennedy and yet his head moved backwards and to the left, which would be the direction of the grassy knoll.


    did you watch the doc? I don't have to shoot a can to know the force moves it the direction the bullet is going, what about if it is attached to stick in the ground, would it stay forward or come back?
    Post edited by mikepegg44 on
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353


    http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/us/j ... 31116.html
    Nov. 16— Forty years later, suspicions of a conspiracy endure: Seven in 10 Americans think the assassination of John F. Kennedy was the result of a plot, not the act of a lone killer — and a bare majority thinks that plot included a second shooter on Dealey Plaza.

    James Fetzer. He is considered by many in that circle to be one of the biggest "experts" on the JFK assination. Look him up. I had him as a professor. I also watched as he told me for 3 class periods how OJ simpson was framed. If you don't know by now who this guy is and what he tries to do then you should do some research on him and his other theories. He promotes himself and his books simply by offering theories on controversial topics...Including but not limited to the CIA's use of an EMP gun that took down Wellstone's plane in northern minnesota. The guy is a cold and calculated person who wants nothing more than to remain relevent by offering silly positions on controversial topics. Let me tell you, if it was the cia involved in all of these things that have happened in the US and this one man knew them all, don't you think they would kill him. I mean seriously. These are the kinds of guys that "truthers" lean on for their expert analysis. Sorry if I am skeptical...I have seen him first hand. All these guys make a living taking advantage of people.
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • WaveCameCrashinWaveCameCrashin Posts: 2,929
    National Geographic Science & Conspiracy Part 1


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR30Ihks ... re=related
  • Pepe SilviaPepe Silvia Posts: 3,758
    OK, he overtstates it. But can you in any way reduce that list to such an extent that thousands didn't have to be involved in it? The point isn't the accuracy of every claim, it's showing how complex it is and how many different parties would have to be shut up or involved in some way.


    you can shrug off how ridiculous the claims are in the site YOU choose to back up your claims with all you want but i don't understand why if this was just al qaeda 2 dozen people were all that needed to be involved, if some americans were involved suddenly that number shoots up to the thousands? how does that work? why would all of the port authority have to be involved? why would the airlines have to be involved? why would all the families have to be involved? sorry, that site just doesn't hold up to criticism very well.

    As for the existence of fire-fighters and relatives that are "truthers" does not take away from the fact that the large majority of these groups aren't. (not that relatives know better than me what happened) If it was widely believed among the firefighters on the scene that this was controlled demolition, why didn't their organizations say or do anything about it? Unions tend to make a fuss if houndreds of their members die "on the job", especially if there was something fishy about it. Why didn't concerned firemen appear in all the media outlets, who would pounce on anything like this? (go on, say conspiracy and I'll start mentally counting how many people in the media that would entail to be in on it)

    Peace
    Dan


    of course not, but that site doesn't say 'not many want an investigation' it makes it seem like NONE of the firefighters and NONE of the family members want another investigation which just isn't true. arguing how big of a % is neither here nor there in the claims your website is making.

    i have no idea why a fire fighters union doesn't ask for an investigation, are we even sure none has? i know the IAFF (international association of fire fighters) had written a letter debunking guliani as a hero and were upset with some of his actions like cutting the number of firefighters allowed to take part in the search from 300 initially taking part at a time to no more than 25 and turning to a 'scoop and dump' procedure at ground zero and unions or whatever tried to meet with him to change his mind but he refused to meet with them....AND when the NY fire fighters protested this action 15 were arrested, including an IAFF leader. They also claim he only cared about recovering the money from the bank of nova scotia and after that was recovered he moved to the scoop and dump operation.

    the difference is i don't claim to know what happened, i just think the official story doesn't add up, you guys on the other hand....are pushing your hearsay and conjecture as 100% truth, case closed, shut the fuck up. yet one of the most widely accepted 'facts' of 9/11, the use of boxcutters, is based on a fabrication. there is NO EVIDENCE of them using boxcutters other than 1 guy who both the FBI and airline have said is a lie and yet it's widely embraced....you don't see a problem with that? but everything else they say MUST be the truth, right? and you really believe 1 of the passports just happened to survive the impact, fireball and collapse and was anonymously turned in?? the passport survived all this but none of the black boxes in did, which is the first time in history this has happened and it happened 4 times in a single day....

    there are a few scenarios i could see happening that involved some american collusion and they don't require thousands of people being in on it. do i know for certain what transpired? of course not, but neither do any of you, you are taking the word of liars who refused to testify under oath or alone, who the commission investigating it said they were repeatedly stonewalled and lied to. not to mention the official reports on the 3 collapses all say they are only theories themselves....so why is 1 theory, lauded by liars, the accepted one so there's no need to even look into anything?
    don't compete; coexist

    what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?

    "I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama

    when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
    i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
  • Pepe SilviaPepe Silvia Posts: 3,758
    mikepegg44 wrote:


    http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/us/j ... 31116.html
    Nov. 16— Forty years later, suspicions of a conspiracy endure: Seven in 10 Americans think the assassination of John F. Kennedy was the result of a plot, not the act of a lone killer — and a bare majority thinks that plot included a second shooter on Dealey Plaza.

    James Fetzer. He is considered by many in that circle to be one of the biggest "experts" on the JFK assination. Look him up. I had him as a professor. I also watched as he told me for 3 class periods how OJ simpson was framed. If you don't know by now who this guy is and what he tries to do then you should do some research on him and his other theories. He promotes himself and his books simply by offering theories on controversial topics...Including but not limited to the CIA's use of an EMP gun that took down Wellstone's plane in northern minnesota. The guy is a cold and calculated person who wants nothing more than to remain relevent by offering silly positions on controversial topics. Let me tell you, if it was the cia involved in all of these things that have happened in the US and this one man knew them all, don't you think they would kill him. I mean seriously. These are the kinds of guys that "truthers" lean on for their expert analysis. Sorry if I am skeptical...I have seen him first hand. All these guys make a living taking advantage of people.


    for every dishonest person pushing this side there are just as many dishonest people pushing the official story. for example, alan dershowitz defended oj simpson and yet he supports the official story of 9/11 and lives in some alternate reality where a report saying both sides committed war crimes and both sides should be put on trial for them is one sided, so what's the point?

    the fact remains that, at least almost 7 years ago, almost 3/4 of americans believed there is a conspiracy involving the murder of jfk
    don't compete; coexist

    what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?

    "I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama

    when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
    i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
  • BlockheadBlockhead Posts: 1,538
    The best evidence that the NIST report on the collapse of the WTC twin towers was severely flawed, and the towers could not have collapsed to the ground through "pancaking" as was concluded, can be found here.

    http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/peopl ... eplies.pdf
  • FiveB247xFiveB247x Posts: 2,330
    I love it when people post "conclusions", yet can't fully prove their own. Let's examine for a moment, if the WTC had explosives or some other method of destruction, how did it happen? Do you realize how much explosives would be necessary to do such a thing? Or perhaps the logistics of carrying out such an undertaking? What "conclusions" can we draw from these items? For once it'd be nice if people apply the same amount of clout and rational to one side of the argument as they do the other, cause if they did, they'd realize this type of scenario is far less likely and possible. But as usual, let's not let a good ole conspiracy theory aimed at the government and half-truthes be snuffed by logic, fact and rational... the other version is much more fun and lively to believe.
    HeidiJam wrote:
    The best evidence that the NIST report on the collapse of the WTC twin towers was severely flawed, and the towers could not have collapsed to the ground through "pancaking" as was concluded, can be found here.

    http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/peopl ... eplies.pdf
    CONservative governMENt

    Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
  • OutOfBreathOutOfBreath Posts: 1,804
    you can shrug off how ridiculous the claims are in the site YOU choose to back up your claims with all you want but i don't understand why if this was just al qaeda 2 dozen people were all that needed to be involved, if some americans were involved suddenly that number shoots up to the thousands? how does that work? why would all of the port authority have to be involved? why would the airlines have to be involved? why would all the families have to be involved? sorry, that site just doesn't hold up to criticism very well.
    The claims aren't ridiculous. Some of the "every" and "all" is overstating it, as I conceded, but it doesn't take away from the fact that at many of these places and institutions many people would have to be "in on it" to keep it all quiet. That some of the listed is going a bit far do not take away from the fact that very many had to be involved for it to work.

    Yes, two dozen men could bring them down maneuvering 2 bigass airplanes into them. Only takes 1 man's push of a button to send off a nuke as well. Few people can kill many and wreak massive destruction. Now, making it LOOK like 2 planes brought them down, rig the buildings with explosives, hide all the evidence to the contrary in a massive cover-up, make the professional committe directly lie about their own profession etc etc, takes A LOT of people and A LOT of pressure. Many of the mentioned on that list has to be in on it, because if they weren't, they would raise the issues that desperately needs to be kept secret for the conspiracy to be successful. You're criticizing the site, fair enough, but how can you reasonably reduce the number of people involved to below thousands, even if excluding some of the more unreasonable claims in that list?
    of course not, but that site doesn't say 'not many want an investigation' it makes it seem like NONE of the firefighters and NONE of the family members want another investigation which just isn't true. arguing how big of a % is neither here nor there in the claims your website is making.
    No, but you are making it sound like they are in the majority, or there are huge groups (of those on the scene mind you) clamouring for justice. Some are. But if it was such an obvious controlled demolition, I'd bet near all of them would be truthers.
    i have no idea why a fire fighters union doesn't ask for an investigation, are we even sure none has? i know the IAFF (international association of fire fighters) had written a letter debunking guliani as a hero and were upset with some of his actions like cutting the number of firefighters allowed to take part in the search from 300 initially taking part at a time to no more than 25 and turning to a 'scoop and dump' procedure at ground zero and unions or whatever tried to meet with him to change his mind but he refused to meet with them....AND when the NY fire fighters protested this action 15 were arrested, including an IAFF leader. They also claim he only cared about recovering the money from the bank of nova scotia and after that was recovered he moved to the scoop and dump operation.
    So, they disagreed with Giuliani, and thought he should devote more time and resources to this. Giuliani, being in charge, and doubtlessly seeing the bills pile up, decided to get moving. You might think it rash, but he was also mayor of a city that just got a block of it's biggest downtown buildings smashed all over the place. No wonder if he was keen to clear up the mess and get started with it.
    the difference is i don't claim to know what happened, i just think the official story doesn't add up, you guys on the other hand....are pushing your hearsay and conjecture as 100% truth, case closed, shut the fuck up. yet one of the most widely accepted 'facts' of 9/11, the use of boxcutters, is based on a fabrication. there is NO EVIDENCE of them using boxcutters other than 1 guy who both the FBI and airline have said is a lie and yet it's widely embraced....you don't see a problem with that? but everything else they say MUST be the truth, right? and you really believe 1 of the passports just happened to survive the impact, fireball and collapse and was anonymously turned in?? the passport survived all this but none of the black boxes in did, which is the first time in history this has happened and it happened 4 times in a single day....
    I am not claiming truth, I just compare the scenarios you pan out with the official story and make my verdict as to which is more likely and describe why I think so. I linked a site for the list which I thought was food for thought and an illustration as to the scale of this supposed conspiracy. I dont read that as gospel either. No web-site should ever be read as such.

    And there is a difference between wrong facts sticking in the public because they were faultily reported early on (in the chaos) and using that for questioning everything. As for black boxes, are they usually in fully loaded planes smashing and exploding into buildings who then collapse and fall down? I find it very likely that they weren't found. This scenario is very different from a plane crashlanding into a field. The passport may well be a fluke find. The reasoning you apply seems to be "if something is found of the plane, why didn't we find all of it?".

    Point is, you're the one with the (in my eyes unlikely) theories, based on having questions with various random things that doesn't add up completely. I have no problem with it not adding up completely. I would actually be very suspicious if everything did. That would smell of pre-planned explanations as real-life is always far more messy and ambigous and leaving loose ends.
    there are a few scenarios i could see happening that involved some american collusion and they don't require thousands of people being in on it. do i know for certain what transpired? of course not, but neither do any of you, you are taking the word of liars who refused to testify under oath or alone, who the commission investigating it said they were repeatedly stonewalled and lied to. not to mention the official reports on the 3 collapses all say they are only theories themselves....so why is 1 theory, lauded by liars, the accepted one so there's no need to even look into anything?
    For any theory that hints at the planes not bringing the buildings down and/or the government executing the whole thing, you need thousands or at the very least houndreds. For someone high up to be involved with Al Qaeda, or someone suspecting or knowing it would happen, perhaps. That would be on the realistic scale of conspiracy. But no evidence of it.

    That the investigation was somewhat hampered and that several people didn't want to testify isn't that unusual is it? A lot of people scrambling to cover their asses after this one, after all. If you then could conveniently deny testifying, that's a get-out-of-jail-free-card from having to take blame. Worthy of criticism, hell yeah. Proof of conspiracy, not even close.

    So to summarize:
    1) I totally dismiss the controlled demolition thesis as outlandish due to the scale required to pull it off, also I add lacking a sufficient motive to do it. Skimming some money of subsequent military contracts doesn't cut it.

    2) I can entertain the idea of someone "inside" having knowledge, and failing to act/not wanting to act. That would be reasonable scale. But in that case, I'm betting they had no idea the buildings actually would fall down.

    3) Things not adding 100% up is actually to me a strength, as reality rarely does. If it all comes together perfectly after a massive event like this, someone is lying or someone had it ready to go beforehand. Reality will have loose ends. The explanation will have to add mostly up, however, which I feel the official committee's explanation make a decent job of.

    4) Stonewalling politicos. So enormously unsurprising. I'll attribute that to the regular ass-covering, which is what they always do.

    So although there most certainly are bound to be errors in the official report, I find it unlikely that there are direct lies in there. Particularly not on the pure structural engineering side of things ie what happened physically with the buildings. Despite flaws, it has far less than any "competing" theory which is almost exclusively found on the net, occasionally with a supporter or two with relevant background.

    Peace
    Dan
    "YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death

    "Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
  • OutOfBreathOutOfBreath Posts: 1,804
    HeidiJam wrote:
    The best evidence that the NIST report on the collapse of the WTC twin towers was severely flawed, and the towers could not have collapsed to the ground through "pancaking" as was concluded, can be found here.

    http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/peopl ... eplies.pdf

    Heh, did you read the whole thing?
    The first part is two people presenting their hypothesis that it couldn't have happened the way the NIST report says, and the following is two seperate discussions as to why some of the assumptions of the first authors were incorrect, so that the main conclusions of the NIST still stands. So you linked both the theory, and it's rather solid refutations. Nice. :) This is why peer-reviewing is essential in science. ;)

    Peace
    Dan
    "YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death

    "Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Sign In or Register to comment.